Can a mere domain name be defamation? Glenn Beck says yes

Hugely popular conservative talker Glenn Beck has sicced his lawyers on a …

When someone registers a domain like glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com, they probably expect to hear from Glenn Beck's lawyers. In this case, it took two days. The site's anonymous operator tells Ars that the whole thing is satire—but that may not be enough to avoid charges of defamation.

Gilbert Gottfried, what have you started?

The controversy started a week ago in the Fark forums, where someone picked up on an old Gilbert Gottfried roast of the "comedian" (scare quotes fully intended) Bob Saget. During the roast, Gottfried repeatedly said (watch the video) that Saget had "not raped and killed a girl in 1990." The Fark forums took the joke about the power of insinuation and applied it to right-wing talk show host Glenn "Obama is a racist" Beck.

One of the Fark readers then took the forum meme to the next level, registering a domain name and launching a web site in order to make a point about talking head TV demagoguery. "Why won't Glenn Beck deny these allegations?" asks the site. "We're not accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a young girl in 1990—in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations. Why won't he deny that he raped and killed a young girl in 1990?" At the very bottom of the page was a small text disclaimer saying that the site was satirical.

I spoke to the anonymous owner of the site, who tells Ars that launching it "just felt right"—it flipped the "birther" non-falsifiable conspiracy theories about Obama's birth and citizenship around and applied the same tactics to one of the biggest talking heads (no pun intended?) on cable news. It's just "using Beck's tactics against him" and is a small way of "directing all this frustration" with Beck and others into action.

The site went up on September 1 and had a huge spike of initial interest—it served more than 120,000 page loads in the first 24 hours. By September 3, lawyers for Beck's media company, Mercury Radio Arts, had contacted the domain registrar demanding that the "highly defamatory domain name" glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com be deleted, that the WhoisGuard privacy protection service be revoked, and that the owner's contact information be turned over to the lawyers.

Registrar NameCheap didn't do this, of course, and Beck's lawyers sent another letter the next day, making the same demands. They also showed that they were reading the website: "We also note that it appears you contacted the individual, as he states on his website hosted on the Defamatory Domain that 'my webhost is taking some flak over this website, so if he gets shuts me down, it may take a bit to get rehosted.'"

The registrar did change the site's nameservers without alerting the owner, but allowed him to change them back once he contacted the company, and the site remains up. The owner also registered additional backup domains, such as "DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com" (form of a question!) and "gb1990.com" (inoffensive!).

Beck's lawyers also filed a case with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Switzerland, the group which handles the worldwide domain dispute resolution process, on the grounds that the new website was improperly using Glenn Beck's trademarked name.

(Side note: Beck's name is in the process of being trademarked in the US. While most of the "goods and services" associated with the name are obvious ones like DVDs and books containing Beck's special brand of commentary, the mark is also reserved for use on "cups, ice buckets, mugs, non-metal piggy banks, ceramic and porcelain holiday ornaments." The thought of such an ornament hanging on a Christmas tree...)

Be careful when stating "facts"

Paul Levy of Public Citizen routinely stands up for Web users who complain about (or otherwise antagonize) deep-pocketed corporate interests, but when we asked him about the site and the defamation complaints, he was happy to stay seated in his chair.

Neither a rapist nor a murderer

The Communications Decency Act basically protects registrars and web hosts from liability for the content that people put up using such services, so the letters to the registrar aren't so much a legal threat as an attempt to get the website owner's contact info without a subpoena. And the trademark claims made at WIPO? Levy thinks they sound "preposterous."

But the possibility of a US defamation/libel suit against the anonymous site operator is a real one. Certainly, domain names alone "can be defamatory," Levy says, pointing out that the first iteration of the site posed the "rape and murder" claim as a statement—not as a question.

Levy says that such a statement is only actionable if 1) it's false (and we're quite sure it is) and 2) it was stated with actual malice. That last bit could be tricky to prove, especially in a case involving an anonymous speaker, but Levy makes clear that the site might well be on the wrong side of a very fine line.

"I don't think 'Ha ha it's a joke' at the end gets you off," he says; if the parodic information is defamatory, it's risky for the defendant in such cases. That's complicated by the fact that the original domain name made the allegedly defamatory claim against Beck—and of course no one stumbling across the site in a search engine or elsewhere would see any disclaimer. In such cases, the domain name itself is a standalone piece of content; the disclaimer may help regarding the website content, but it won't necessarily transfer a cone of protection to the domain name as well.

Corynne McSherry, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, chose the same word to describe the WIPO domain name dispute process: "preposterous." But she's less convinced that Beck's lawyers have a case to make regarding defamation, even when it comes to the website's name. "I'm not sure of any case where someone has claimed that a domain name was defamatory," she tells Ars. And while domain names do pop up alone in search engines and other places, the public generally thinks of a site's name in connection with the full content of the site, not as some standalone morsel of content.

While acknowledging that the name is "pretty dramatic," she notes that this is often part of the point of parody—to highlight perceived outrageous behavior in one's opponents by upping the ante (think, for instance, of Jonathan Swift's vicious satire "A Modest Proposal" in which he proposes that the Irish poor make money by selling their children to the wealthy... as food).

In McSherry's analysis, the site is "pure political criticism and there's nothing wrong with that."

Important to do

When I ask the site's owner whether he thought, on a human/moral level, the joke had gone to far, there is a pause. "Would i do something like this to any random human being?" he says. "No way, of course not." But the site is intended as a parody and Beck is a public figure...

Will the site change any TV talking head tactics? The anonymous owner admits that it probably won't, but he says that the site "feels important to do." It "served as that release valve of frustration" for people angered by the tactics of talk show hosts.

And yet, he had a moment of pause when someone wrote in to him saying that she had been raped as a young girl and that she found the site grotesque rather than humorous or insightful.

No lawsuit has yet been filed, and it's not clear how far Beck's lawyers will take the matter. Unless the site owner responds to the WIPO domain dispute, however, he will lose the original domain.

On the site forums, readers are already thinking of ways to extend the satire. "Glenn Beck hosts a daily radio show from 9am-noon," wrote one. "I think we should begin calling and asking why he refuses to address his alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990... If you do call in, please record and upload, so we can share his answers (or lack there of) with the world."

Originally posted by talman:Wow...wtf is so funny about raping and murdering a young girl?

Why don't you ask Glenn Beck? He was the one laughing.(LOOOOOOOOOOL*)

Anyway, the idea of the site is stupid and unpleasant, and I do hope that a succesful case is brought against the operators. As a UK'r, I'm only aware of Glenn Beck following his being featured on Screenwipe; while he does seem to be an unpleasant nutcase, I don't think falsely insinuating that he's a murderer and a rapist is the right approach.

It's clearly defamation, as long as he can document his whereabouts for every moment of 1990, so as to prove his innocence.

The sad thing is that I have no doubt that the irony is totally lost on him. He'll go on saying that nobody has proved that Obama's birth certificate *wasn't* faked, and that nobody's proved the Clintons *didn't* murder Vince Foster, and so on, while simultaneously being totally indignant about this terrible lie being told about him. That's the problem with zealots: if he was rational enough to see the connection and commentary, he wouldn't be such a raving lunatic to start with.

Originally posted by talman:Wow...wtf is so funny about raping and murdering a young girl? In this case I hope Beck brings the proverbial hammer down on whoever started the site.

Nothing

What's funny is asking Glenn Beck to prove he did not rape and murder a woman in 1990, and then constantly claim that while you don't believe he did it, you are troubled by his unwillingness to address the issue. Bonus points for saying that this would all be cleared up if he would just release the original long-form police report that clears his name.

If you don't find that funny, you're either unfamiliar with Beck's slimeball tactics and the fallacious logic his audience laps up, or you're part of logic-impaired mob that he exploits.

I've seen a few video clips of Glenn Beck, and I've never seen anything even remotely akin to accusing someone of rape 20 years ago.

You should watch a few more clips then.

Although I don't think that in one single instance he's said anything that is akin to accusing someone of rape, he is well practiced in the "art" of insinuating that someone is guilty of something by forming it as a question up for debate.

And I agree with aiken_d, the irony is completely lost on dirt bags like this. Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, they all love to play the bully and kick sand in the face of anyone they don't like. But if someone turns the tables on them, they immediately play the victim card, frequently laughingly attempting to claim that such attacks only take place when the other side can't debate the issues, then going back to the exact same tactics in their next segment.

The point beyond simply pushing the extreme for the sake of satire as in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (read that before making any judgement, it's only a few pages long so it won't kill you...) is that Glen Beck has said digusting things almost as bad a rape, and guess what, he wasn't trying to make a satire, he was being serious and trying to warp people's views. And since he couldn't use the truth, he has to use this digusting technique to do itl If he or anyone like it actually had real supporting substance then they wouldn't have to make up things and dance around the truth just to get supporters.

As for legal issues, I think the addition of "did" to the domain as it is shown on the site would clear any chance of it having legal repercussions. If it did have legal repercussions then Glen Beck himself needs to be arrested or fined or sued for his own uses, as well as a lot of others from his side which use the same digusting techniques.

Also, as for the use of rape by itself; I agree that it is shocking, but really what Glen Beck and other do sickens me almost as much. My girlfriend was raped when she was younger, and her life will never be the same, but as much as that is a issue and how much she doesn't like to think about it, she understands the satire and is sickened by Mr. Beck as well. She says that what he does feels how she felt about what happened to her, she says she doesn't understand how people could ever trust him, and why he's still allowed to do this to millions of people everyday.

Speaking as a law *student,* I think Beck may well be able to successfully argue actual malice. Unfortunately, their own cute little statements that they don't "believe" Glen committed rape/murder strengthen that argument. Although this site is meant as satire (and their philosophical point is, itself, valid), the subject matter is so grotesque and offensive that I think Beck has a real case here.

Originally posted by BucksterMcgee:The point beyond simply pushing the extreme for the sake of satire as in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (read that before making any judgement, it's only a few pages long so it won't kill you...) is that Glen Beck has said digusting things almost as bad a rape, and guess what, he wasn't trying to make a satire, he was being serious and trying to warp people's views. And since he couldn't use the truth, he has to use this digusting technique to do itl If he or anyone like it actually had real supporting substance then they wouldn't have to make up things and dance around the truth just to get supporters.

As for legal issues, I think the addition of "did" to the domain as it is shown on the site would clear any chance of it having legal repercussions. If it did have legal repercussions then Glen Beck himself needs to be arrested or fined or sued for his own uses, as well as a lot of others from his side which use the same digusting techniques.

Also, as for the use of rape by itself; I agree that it is shocking, but really what Glen Beck and other do sickens me almost as much. My girlfriend was raped when she was younger, and her life will never be the same, but as much as that is a issue and how much she doesn't like to think about it, she understands the satire and is sickened by Mr. Beck as well. She says that what he does feels how she felt about what happened to her, she says she doesn't understand how people could ever trust him, and why he's still allowed to do this to millions of people everyday.

Guess I need to do some more research on Glenn Beck then before coming to his defense. Is it his positions on issues that offend you or what he has actually said?

Originally posted by talman:Wow...wtf is so funny about raping and murdering a young girl? In this case I hope Beck brings the proverbial hammer down on whoever started the site.

Nothing

What's funny is asking Glenn Beck to prove he did not rape and murder a woman in 1990, and then constantly claim that while you don't believe he did it, you are troubled by his unwillingness to address the issue. Bonus points for saying that this would all be cleared up if he would just release the original long-form police report that clears his name.

If you don't find that funny, you're either unfamiliar with Beck's slimeball tactics and the fallacious logic his audience laps up, or you're part of logic-impaired mob that he exploits.

The former. I barely know who the guy is but I can't imagine that a public commentator/figure/whatever the hell he calls himself has made a claim as outrageous as the one the aforementioned website makes. If he HAS made such claims and yet still remains on the air then there's absolutely no hope left for our country and future.

"Did Glenn Beck rape and murder a young girl in 1990? Did he brutally sodomize her every orifice before savagely hacking apart her slender, still-living frame? Did he take pictures to have a memento of the heinous act, which he then had laminated so his foul seed could be washed off after each onanistic frenzy?

I can't say that this is true, but in the minds of some, lingering questions remain. "

I really don't see how a statement such as this is qualitatively different from his various denial-of-accusation that, say, Obama's not a native-born citizen, or not a racist, nor his "some say..." about the whole Vince Foster thing.

As to whether the domain name is libellous, lingering questions remain.

Originally posted by talman:The former. I barely know who the guy is but I can't imagine that a public commentator/figure/whatever the hell he calls himself has made a claim as outrageous as the one the aforementioned website makes. If he HAS made such claims and yet still remains on the air then there's absolutely no hope left for our country and future.

So, in one incident, he interviewed Congressman Keith Ellison after his election. Ellison happens to be a Muslim.

He basically opened with "And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies."

And I know you're not. I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."

Jon Stewart put it best when he said of Glenn Beck: "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking"

Politics aside, this would only be "giving him a taste of his own medicine" if there was any evidence to an allegation such as this. The things Beck has said are generally observations of the people Obama surrounds himself with or comments he has made.

He makes incendiary and inflammatory statements like: Obama is a communist because he has communist friends. Obama is a radical because he has radical friends (Van Jones/Bill Ayers). Obama is Racist because he refers to his grandma as a "typical white person". His comments may not be entirely fair or accurate, but they aren't completely baseless either like this particular website has done to him.

Originally posted by BucksterMcgee:The point beyond simply pushing the extreme for the sake of satire as in Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (read that before making any judgement, it's only a few pages long so it won't kill you...) is that Glen Beck has said digusting things almost as bad a rape, and guess what, he wasn't trying to make a satire, he was being serious and trying to warp people's views. And since he couldn't use the truth, he has to use this digusting technique to do itl If he or anyone like it actually had real supporting substance then they wouldn't have to make up things and dance around the truth just to get supporters.

As for legal issues, I think the addition of "did" to the domain as it is shown on the site would clear any chance of it having legal repercussions. If it did have legal repercussions then Glen Beck himself needs to be arrested or fined or sued for his own uses, as well as a lot of others from his side which use the same digusting techniques.

Also, as for the use of rape by itself; I agree that it is shocking, but really what Glen Beck and other do sickens me almost as much. My girlfriend was raped when she was younger, and her life will never be the same, but as much as that is a issue and how much she doesn't like to think about it, she understands the satire and is sickened by Mr. Beck as well. She says that what he does feels how she felt about what happened to her, she says she doesn't understand how people could ever trust him, and why he's still allowed to do this to millions of people everyday.

Guess I need to do some more research on Glenn Beck then before coming to his defense. Is it his positions on issues that offend you or what he has actually said?

It's the tactics.

For example, Glenn Beck spent weeks pointing out that "people are saying" things about FEMA having concentration camps for conservatives. Every time, they would bring up this idea, and then say that they "couldn't disprove it" -- that is, firmly implanting the idea in everyone's heads while maintaining a nice ass-covering distance from the actual results of their "reporting". In the end, they finally had a small bit where they clarified that there were not in fact any FEMA concentration camps for conservatives, and then spent the rest of the segment patting themselves on the back for being so responsible that they would never feature a story about this kind of thing without checking the facts.

And this is basically the way they approach everything. So while rape isn't funny, and murder isn't funny, the site is fucking hilarious. Also, what Senjutsu said.

On behalf of the defence, I submit that it is impossible to insert a question mark into the domain name. If it could have been done, it would have been done, and then all this talk of defamation would never have happened.

As to that Stewart clip up there a bit - he's not even half the moron that this Beck is. Why doesn't the president go after Beck for defamation?

On the site forums, readers are already thinking of ways to extend the satire. "Glenn Beck hosts a daily radio show from 9am-noon," wrote one. "I think we should begin calling and asking why he refuses to address his alleged rape and murder of a young girl in 1990... If you do call in, please record and upload, so we can share his answers (or lack there of) with the world."